When is it Okay...

[Mystery Meat]

This is another thread related to the practice of "gaslighting." I know, I know. This one is likely to get closed as well, but I want to look at this from a different light.

In the past few years, I have heard many stories of folks who have decided to leave the Church. These folks give me all the reasons for their departure. I have to evaluate their story, weigh their own reliability and determine if I think the story they tell is accurate and fair. 

Also, as a general rule, I think part of having charity is, you know, being charitable to other people. Typically, this means giving them the benefit of the doubt. But sometimes I am forced to choose between two parties and who I am going to believe.

Now, all of this is to say I don't believe that we are always, if ever, reliable narrators of our own stories (this is why many authors write in first person). So, for example, if someone who leaves the Church comes to me and tells me their story and I doubt their story and believe them to be unreliable, is it gaslighting for me to say so and to question the reliability of their account? In practice, I would rarely do this as I don't generally think it is my place. But as a matter of theoretical practice.

Just curious.

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

This is another thread related to the practice of "gaslighting." I know, I know. This one is likely to get closed as well, but I want to look at this from a different light.

In the past few years, I have heard many stories of folks who have decided to leave the Church. These folks give me all the reasons for their departure. I have to evaluate their story, weigh their own reliability and determine if I think the story they tell is accurate and fair. 

Also, as a general rule, I think part of having charity is, you know, being charitable to other people. Typically, this means giving them the benefit of the doubt. But sometimes I am forced to choose between two parties and who I am going to believe.

Now, all of this is to say I don't believe that we are always, if ever, reliable narrators of our own stories (this is why many authors write in first person). So, for example, if someone who leaves the Church comes to me and tells me their story and I doubt their story and believe them to be unreliable, is it gaslighting for me to say so and to question the reliability of their account? In practice, I would rarely do this as I don't generally think it is my place. But as a matter of theoretical practice.

Just curious.

I believe you say this because if what others are saying is true or legitmate...reasons for leaving the church, it may make your ground shaky. Therefore you choose to not believe they know what they are doing. Sound right? 

I also want to add that leaving the LDS church could be extremely difficult for people because of the authoritarianism that the church seems to hold in different areas. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Tacenda

[JAHS]

Depends on how close and important this person is to you. For someone I don't know so well I would just nod my head, and tell them I understand their position.  I might question the reliability of their account but probably not tell them that to their face, because how can I know if they are telling the truth or not about their own personal experiences? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

39 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Now, all of this is to say I don't believe that we are always, if ever, reliable narrators of our own stories.

A point taught in first-year anthropology classes.

[Mystery Meat]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I believe you say this because if what others are saying is true or legitmate...reasons for leaving the church, it may make your ground shaky. Therefore you choose to not believe they know what they are doing. Sound right? 

I also want to add that leaving the LDS church could be extremely difficult for people because of the authoritarianism that the church seems to hold in different areas. 

This is a fair question. Like I said, I am okay with people questioning my own biases and motives.

However, me accepting that their are problems in the Church (which I do) has not yet had an affect on my testimony or faith. To me that's what faith is. There can be no faith without ambiguity or nuance. I don't mind that people see things differently then I do. 

Now, as far as me choosing not to believe that they know what they are doing. That part is wrong. I think some have understandable reasons and qualms. Their concerns have no effect on me or my faith. But some people are disingenuous and justify stuff they would never let anyone else get away with. In other words, my faith (and knowledge) is not insecure.

[Jeanne]

If you at least listen..it is the most charitable thing you can do.  I don't know about gas lighting; but if you treat others like you would want missionaries to be treated..good deal.

When it comes to personal narratives on both sides of the coin, just plain respect can go a long ways.  It also depends on the attitude of  person..nothing wrong with sharing thoughts or perceived reasons..but how it is put forth is really the key.

Remember in April when I put up the song/thread Imagine?  The whole reason I did that was not the song itself..but because all of a sudden after many years..I could hear 5 part harmony..and that..was heaven!  That being said..many jumped on me quickly and it broke down communication in a big way.  My moment was stolen.  In any case what you have written in your OP..I respect and that would be the way to handle it..without judgement..(or at least quiet judgement) But always listen..there narrative may sound false to you..but those feelings are real.

Edited to add:...I know I sometimes come off snarky..but most of the time I am trying to be funny..and lighten things up alittle. 

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Jeanne

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

A point taught in first-year anthropology classes.

Which is true undoubtedly, but who is in a better position to get it totally wrong?

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I believe you say this because if what others are saying is true or legitmate...reasons for leaving the church, it may make your ground shaky. Therefore you choose to not believe they know what they are doing. Sound right? 

 

If someone said the reverse to an ex-mormon about their reaction to mormon experiences and opinions (that they only choose not to believe them because it would make their ground shaky), would that be a fair statement?

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Which is true undoubtedly, but who is in a better position to get it totally wrong?

Bingo!

Which is why I choose not to believe either the people or those who write about them.

[juliann]

55 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

 

Now, all of this is to say I don't believe that we are always, if ever, reliable narrators of our own stories (this is why many authors write in first person). So, for example, if someone who leaves the Church comes to me and tells me their story and I doubt their story and believe them to be unreliable, is it gaslighting for me to say so and to question the reliability of their account? In practice, I would rarely do this as I don't generally think it is my place. But as a matter of theoretical practice.

Just curious.

Well, you will be told it is gaslighting. That is replacing telling you you are brainwashed. Gaslighting is more deadly because it is malicious and active where brainwashing is passive. Acting rather than being acted upon kind of thing. 

Exit narratives are considered somewhat unreliable because they are as crafted as F&T meeting testimonies. This isn't just opinion, it is an area of study and research. 

I don't know that there has to be a right and a wrong side, though. It just is where they are at. Most will move on and hopefully live fulfilling and happy lives. 

[Calm]

Quote

is it gaslighting for me to say so and to question the reliability of their account

It is only gas lighting if you know they are right and you are trying to trick them into doubting themselves.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Exit narratives are considered somewhat unreliable because they are as crafted as F&T meeting testimonies. This isn't just opinion, it is an area of study and research. 

My first exposure to this phenomenon came when a close childhood friend who had left the Church made contact with me some years ago. Towards the end of our phone conversation, he began rehearsing to me a narrative that I had read online numerous times but which in no way matched the details of his life. I stopped him and said, 'Dude, are you forgetting that I've known you since you were eight? I don't know whose story you're telling, but it's not yours. I was there. I remember what you said and did', and then I quickly shared a couple of specific illustrations. After a few seconds of silence on his part, he apologised for needing to run. We haven't spoken since.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is only gas lighting if you know they are right and you are trying to trick them into doubting themselves.

Which means you can be 100% sure that it isn't ... whilst they are 100% certain that it is ...

[Duncan]

38 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My first exposure to this phenomenon came when a close childhood friend who had left the Church made contact with me some years ago. Towards the end of our phone conversation, he began rehearsing to me a narrative that I had read online numerous times but which in no way matched the details of his life. I stopped him and said, 'Dude, are you forgetting that I've known you since you were eight? I don't know whose story you're telling, but it's not yours. I was there. I remember what you said and did', and then I quickly shared a couple of specific illustrations. After a few seconds of silence on his part, he apologised for needing to run. We haven't spoken since.  

I had a similar experience, except with this guy in my YSA ward. He was only a member maybe 5 years and he left the Church, well not according to a youtube video he has up, he was the President of this and that and this big Mormon. He speaks at these atheist conferences about his experience in the Church. A friend of mine knows the organizers and they told them that guy is not who he said he is, like at all. I was tempted once to show up and sit on the front row, just to see his reaction and he would know that I know he's lying-I didn't end up going because they only had a vegetarian buffet and I can't stand the sound of crunching

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

Quote

3 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Now, all of this is to say I don't believe that we are always, if ever, reliable narrators of our own stories.

A point taught in first-year anthropology classes.

Ah, but the opposite is actually the case:  Anthropologists are duty-bound to take self-reporting at face value.  Social anthropologists (ethnologists) are descriptive, not judgmental.  It may be true that the individual is ignorant of the true facts underlying his culture, and that he believes the traditional myths and symbols taught him as he grew up, and his group or tribe may share those views and thus reinforce his version of reality.  This is as true of primitive tribes in the jungle as it is of modern Mormons.  Indeed, this applies to all cultures.

Some very interesting results have come via such phenomenological research:

John L. Landgraf, Land-Use in the Ramah Area of New Mexico: An Anthropological Approach to Areal Study, Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 42, 1. Reports of the Ramah Project 5 (Harvard Univ./Peabody Museum, 1954), reviewed by Harvey C. Moore, American Anthropologist 58/2 (1956):377-378, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1956.58.2.02a00230/pdf .  A study of the local Navahos, Spanish-Americans, Mormons, El Morro Texans, and Anglos. 

Clyde Kluckhohn, “A Comparative Study of Values in Five Cultures,” in E. Z. Vogt, ed., Navaho Veterans: A Study of Changing Values (Harvard Univ./Peabody Museum, 1951),

Evon Z. Volgt and Ethel M. Albert, “The ‘Comparative Study of Values in Five Cultures’ Project,” in Vogt & Albert, eds., People of Rimrock: A Study of Values in Five Cultures (Harvard, 1966/ Athenaeum, 1977).

Thomas F. O’Dea, The Mormons (Univ. of Chicago, 1957).

Howard M. Bahr, “Thomas F. O’Dea, the Harvard Values Project, and the Mormons: Early Lessons on Ethnography among the Literate,” Human Organization, 65/4 (Winter 2006):343-352, online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/44127448?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents . 

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Anthropologists are duty-bound to take self-reporting at face value.

You've had very different training/experience to what I have...

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

If someone said the reverse to an ex-mormon about their reaction to mormon experiences and opinions (that they only choose not to believe them because it would make their ground shaky), would that be a fair statement?

You're right, I don't know why I wrote that, it came off rather snobish. So Mystery Meat if your reading, sorry.

[Hamba Tuhan]

27 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I was tempted once to show up and sit on the front row, just to see his reaction and he would know that I know he's lying...

I don't think my friend was lying. I think he has sincerely re-framed his entire life's story to fit a validating narrative. I fear it must have been terribly confronting to have someone challenge that; he's lived his entire post-Church life around non-members and former members who I suspect just nodded along with everything he said.

Quote

I didn't end up going because they only had a vegetarian buffet and I can't stand the sound of crunching.

I would have gone just for a vegetarian buffet!

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

It is only gas lighting if you know they are right and you are trying to trick them into doubting themselves.

This. Gas lighting is actively designed to manipulate. Doubting someone is not gaslighting them. Trying to convince someone to doubt themselves is not even gaslighting.

Manipulating someone to doubt themselves to convince them of something you know is wrong is gaslighting.

To gaslight an exit story you would have to know it is accurate and convince the teller they are wrong about it. Generally gaslighting only occurs in codependent and/or abusive relationships.

Edited May 25, 2017 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You've had very different training/experience to what I have...

Anthropologists are not supposed to judge or influence the culture being studied through their study. Telling them their myths are bunk is not allowed. The anthropologist is not required to believe them though they are expected to report them accurately.

[Hamba Tuhan]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Anthropologists are not supposed to judge or influence the culture being studied through their study. Telling them their myths are bunk is not allowed. The anthropologist is not required to believe them though they are expected to report them accurately.

Any yobbo can accurately repeat what people tell her/him. The whole point of anthropology is to analyse what interlocutors say, providing it with a systematic context. I agree (heartily!) that this is a fraught exercise that often ends up revealing far more about the anthropologist than about the people under study, but the whole point of the exercise rests upon the assumption that the academic will see/understand/report things that the 'subjects' themselves won't/can't.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Duncan]

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think my friend was lying. I think he has sincerely re-framed his entire life's story to fit a validating narrative. I fear it must have been terribly confronting to have someone challenge that; he's lived his entire post-Church life around non-members and former members who I suspect just nodded along with everything he said.

I would have gone just for a vegetarian buffet!

well, you can have mine!

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Any yobbo can accurately repeat what people tell her/him. The whole point of anthropology is to analyse what interlocutors say, providing it with a systematic context. I agree (heartily!) that this is a fraught exercise that often ends up revealing far more about the anthropologist than about the people under study, but the whole point of the exercise rests upon the assumption that the academic will see/understand/report things that the 'subjects' themselves won't/can't.

True, I meant that anthropologists do have a duty to record correctly. Of course they also analyze and draw conclusions.

[probablyHagoth7]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

But always listen..there narrative may sound false to you..but those feelings are real.

[probablyHagoth7]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

It is only gas lighting if you know they are right and you are trying to trick them into doubting themselves.

What if you merely *hope* they're wrong, for personal and/or team gain? The same methods apply.

It can be one means of circling the wagons. In other words, "If you make us question a few things, we're gonna see what happens when you doubt everything."

That said, I can't pretend to be a mindreader. I honestly  don't know *why* some people do the things they do...especially when some of the most perplexing people decline to explain.

Edited May 25, 2017 by probablyHagoth7